New Sub- This is significant

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Also don't forget that Rolex was never anything but a premium price product.

In 1982 these utilitarian rugged tool sports watches each cost nearly 6 month's salary of my first job.

Very, very true, Paul.

My first Rolex which I bought in Teheran (Iran) in Oct. 1980 cost me exactly 3 months wages back then.

JJ

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Moggo

Why is the clasp better for diving? Not being argumentative just don't know why? It's function is to keep the watch securely fastened isn't it? Which the old one has done for many years. The lume being blue, I can't disagree with if it has been scientifically proven as a better colour at depth.

But unless you shine a bright artificial light on the lume at night to charge it. The colour at night underwater would not make a lot of difference,whether its green, blue, or skybluepink.At even 10m its very very dark and I had no problem reading lume on SD Sub at all recreational depths and over, same for most any other dive watch.And with well over 500 dives with either SD Sub or Citizen never ever had a problem with clasps or reading the lume at night.But most divers today rely on computer with a watch just as a back up.But afraid today watches like the Citizen range have far more diving related information than a simple time lapse bezel.And today a very very very small percentage of Rolex watches ever see water other than a quick dip in the pool or perhaps a shower.Yes at around 10m light from the blue spectrum is the only colour left from natural sunlight that can penetrate the depths. But put artificial white light back and most of the colours come back as they are in natural sunlight especially the reds and greens.Many of the hard corals have a tiny algae called zooxanthellae living in there bodies, now shine a white light,or a blue light on those at night most fluoresce a bright green.As light passes through water it is refracted, or bent. Some colours, such as reds and yellows are lost first,you can no longer see them at depth.The main colours left are the blues and greens until you put the sunlight or artificial white light back then you will see all the colours of the spectrum very similar as on surface.

[Casey VP-26]

I bought my Rolex Sub to wear in my lifestyle. Sorry JJ not to Pamper. Ya Now 12 years ago I paid 2400. new , I wore the hell out of it and today if I were to put a new besel on it I could probably get 2500-3000 for it. What am I doing Wrong?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Casey VP-26

I bought my Rolex Sub to wear in my lifestyle. Sorry JJ not to Pamper. Ya Now 12 years ago I paid 2400. new , I wore the hell out of it and today if I were to put a new besel on it I could probably get 2500-3000 for it. What am I doing Wrong?

Nothing, my friend.

But how the hell do you hang onto a watch for 12 years without flipping it?

[Casey VP-26]

Good Questio JJ, But this one was a Gift. Regards

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Casey VP-26

Good Question, JJ, But this one was a Gift. Regards

Fair enough, buddy!!

[Moggo]

Thanks for that great description, very interesting Padi

Do you think the new clasp makes a big difference to a diver?

[outtatime]

I'm sorry, but I just don't think the Submariner is worth north of $7,000. For me, $6,000 is really too much (even though I broke down and got one anyway). I think they're finally getting way out of hand (and further and further out of reach). I remember when I first looked at them in 2004 they were $3950. Expensive, yes, but still within reach of "most" people (within reason). In 6 years they've nearly doubled. I wish the same could be said for my salary. That's crazy to me. I know I'll get ostracized for this, but there's just not enough "to it" to justify $7k+. I know people will argue about the R&D, the higher quality steel, etc., but come on...I know we haven't seen official pricing yet, but if it is higher than the GMT I think I'm out. If the GMT (with its additional complications) can be 7 grand, there's no excuse for the new Sub to be even more. At some point this madness has to stop. Otherwise, it'll be a $10,000 SS diver within 5 years.

[jrssv]

The bezel on my GMT IIc doesn't shatter easily. It's take some hits what would have damaged the bezel on my Sub LV.

[RootBeerGMT]

OMG!! Funny as hell.... somebody actually said the newer ones were more fragile!!!
Read back a few years people and listen to all the BS! Rolex continues to upgrade and build a better watch. That is why Rolex is KING!! Period.

[scubadds]

Originally Posted by outtatime

I'm sorry, but I just don't think the Submariner is worth north of $7,000. For me, $6,000 is really too much (even though I broke down and got one anyway). I think they're finally getting way out of hand (and further and further out of reach). I remember when I first looked at them in 2004 they were $3950. Expensive, yes, but still within reach of "most" people (within reason). In 6 years they've nearly doubled. I wish the same could be said for my salary. That's crazy to me. I know I'll get ostracized for this, but there's just not enough "to it" to justify $7k+. I know people will argue about the R&D, the higher quality steel, etc., but come on...I know we haven't seen official pricing yet, but if it is higher than the GMT I think I'm out. If the GMT (with its additional complications) can be 7 grand, there's no excuse for the new Sub to be even more. At some point this madness has to stop. Otherwise, it'll be a $10,000 SS diver within 5 years.

NIce Necroposting....
times have changed for sure

[904VT]

Even if Rolex were to release a new Sub next year we won’t see it in ADs. If you think Pepsi demand is crazy wait until a new Sub. These sold well coming out of an awful recession. My guess is Rolex is waiting for the next downturn. Heck when 6 digit Subs came out in SS you could find the occasional SS 116520 sitting too. Imagine today. May as well enjoy the one we have for now

[Binky1]

I bought this back in 1989 and wore it night and day solidly til 2011, it was my only watch then I bought more watches and try to continue to do so. In those 22 years back when I was younger and fitter the watch came on every dive (sport diving), surfing, water skiing and loads more acitivities you do when you’re young! It’s dived off Phi Phi Island, skied in Swiss and been to see Motörhead at Hammersmith. I would take it off for a few moments if I managed to score, all Gentleman, me! What I am trying to say is that both will handle anything thrown at them and I think those memories with the watch on are seriously more valuable than the price of the watch at MSRP or even Grey. My 16610 will be 30 on 27th Dec. See below pic

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by TheBluePrince

Most people who buy a Rolex aren't watch enthusiasts. They buy it because it's a Rolex for vanity and apperance reasons only.

They won't have a clue about the old model Vs new model. They just go into an AD and buy the big black shiny watch in the window. While we here and other WIS types are all talking about, aware of and debating the new watch, for the majority of new Rolex buyers it will mean nothing to them.

In what window?

Hahaha

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Moggo

Why is the clasp better for diving? Not being argumentative just don't know why? It's function is to keep the watch securely fastened isn't it? Which the old one has done for many years. The lume being blue, I can't disagree with if it has been scientifically proven as a better colour at depth.

The new clasp allows you to adjust the size without any tools, which the old one didn’t

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Casey VP-26

I bought my Rolex Sub to wear in my lifestyle. Sorry JJ not to Pamper. Ya Now 12 years ago I paid 2400. new , I wore the hell out of it and today if I were to put a new besel on it I could probably get 2500-3000 for it. What am I doing Wrong?

Hey if you ever want to sell it, PM me

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Well, the bezel is far more durable. No more scratches and fading.

The blue lume is more practical for actual diving. I read on a thread that blue is the last visible spectrum the deeper you dive.

The clasp is far superior, and is built to address the needs of the diver.



While the cost is prohibitive, I'd argue that the Submariner is a better dive watch than perhaps it has ever been.


I don't plan on buying one, so I don't really have a horse in this race.

Yes, see except it’s not a better dive watch now. There were no functional improvements. Bracelet only “feels” stronger-it’s not, band held by the same pins. Bezel, more prone to failure, aluminum not so much. Clasp, I have 4 fine adjustments with my 16610. I’ll concede one may be able to adjust it 2-3’seconds faster on the new version. That’s it. What it lost was versatility due to the giant lugs and shine. It’s not the chameleon the 5 digit was. It’s now a chunky sport watch.

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Binky1

I bought this back in 1989 and wore it night and day solidly til 2011, it was my only watch then I bought more watches and try to continue to do so. In those 22 years back when I was younger and fitter the watch came on every dive (sport diving), surfing, water skiing and loads more acitivities you do when you’re young! It’s dived off Phi Phi Island, skied in Swiss and been to see Motörhead at Hammersmith. I would take it off for a few moments if I managed to score, all Gentleman, me! What I am trying to say is that both will handle anything thrown at them and I think those memories with the watch on are seriously more valuable than the price of the watch at MSRP or even Grey. My 16610 will be 30 on 27th Dec. See below pic

We can’t see the pic :(

[nachopc]

Originally Posted by dardeca

I agree!

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[outtatime]

Originally Posted by scubadds

NIce Necroposting....
times have changed for sure

You bumped a 9 year old thread and accused me of necroposting? OK...

[Binky1]

Originally Posted by schoolboy

We can’t see the pic :(

Sorry old man baffled by computer stuff! Up now. When you look at the pic now I think they are pretty amazing to still be in that shape after all those years...saying that the bracelet is getting a bit droopy...bit like it’s owner!

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by NCD1979

While I'll venture to say that the new Sub LN is going to be a big seller, I think that we have to acknowledge the significance of the price increase and movement away from being a true tool watch.

The new model is truly magnificent but IMHO is not going to lend itself to being worn during the full range of applications like the older 16610

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Sub is getting a little too "Bling" for universal everyday wear, not to mention the price tag.

Just my thoughts - Fire at will...

Agree 100%. Unlike 99% of other here I still wear and need my watch as a tool. (No my phone won’t work for what I need). The sad part is as prices rise, Rolex felt the need to make the watches appear more refined and feel more luxurious. People drop 10 grand they want the notice that they are wearing a Rolex and that’s why the giant lugs and excessively shiny bezels. No functional improvement there. What was lost in the changes (except for the exp 2-it is far more legible than the 5 digit version) was versatility and integration. New versions are a circle slapped on a square, with a bracelet that now appears too narrow. The beauty of the 5 digits is the case eased down to the bracelet appearing as if made by one piece of metal. Just smoother lines. The aluminum inserts quickly lost the showroom sheen and disappear. I wore my 16610 with my tux when I got married. The watch simply disappeared. The new version (while still nice) would have looked a chunky oversized accessory.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Agree 100%. Unlike 99% of other here I still wear and need my watch as a tool. (No my phone won’t work for what I need). The sad part is as prices rise, Rolex felt the need to make the watches appear more refined and feel more luxurious. People drop 10 grand they want the notice that they are wearing a Rolex and that’s why the giant lugs and excessively shiny bezels. No functional improvement there. What was lost in the changes (except for the exp 2-it is far more legible than the 5 digit version) was versatility and integration. New versions are a circle slapped on a square, with a bracelet that now appears too narrow. The beauty of the 5 digits is the case eased down to the bracelet appearing as if made by one piece of metal. Just smoother lines. The aluminum inserts quickly lost the showroom sheen and disappear. I wore my 16610 with my tux when I got married. The watch simply disappeared. The new version (while still nice) would have looked a chunky oversized accessory.

Some good points. But we can’t turn back the clock. But we can buy vintage-but at inflated prices.

I think this is why Omega has seen an upsurge frankly. They still produce reasonably priced tool watches

[WS9D]

Originally Posted by outtatime

You bumped a 9 year old thread and accused me of necroposting? OK...

Right, I wish people would read and check the date before bumping a really old thread.

[RootBeerGMT]

Wah !!!

Somebody pickup that baby’s pacifier and stick it back in please!!
Good grief!
Oh Wait!! He must have an Omega!!!
Ha ha ha!!

[RootBeerGMT]

The whole point of bumping the old thread was to show history repeats itself.....

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Binky1

Sorry old man baffled by computer stuff! Up now. When you look at the pic now I think they are pretty amazing to still be in that shape after all those years...saying that the bracelet is getting a bit droopy...bit like it’s owner!

That looks good to me! I love how the edge of the bezel still looks super sharp.

Take care of it and wear it in good health!

[Binky1]

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by RootBeerGMT

OMG!! Funny as hell.... somebody actually said the newer ones were more fragile!!!
Read back a few years people and listen to all the BS! Rolex continues to upgrade and build a better watch. That is why Rolex is KING!! Period.

Rootbeer....bringing up these old posts is a great way to get yourself banned.... it's not a practice that's appreciated by those that run this place (or most forums).

[RootBeerGMT]

Whatever... The moderators of this forum are excellent people and allow everyone to have their own opinions...
I have multiple friends on this forum who have posted much Stronger worded posts.
All I was doing was showing that people in the past believed the new model Sub would fail.... It has done the opposite. People also said NOBODY would pay over $7k for a sub.... once again, WRONG....
WASNT trying to offend you..... was being observant of past posts and making my own observations available to my friends here on this forum.....
If it offended you, I do apologize.
I can see how having to skip over a post by one line to view the next can be very difficult for you....

G'Day!